from the we-don't-appear-to-be-learning-anything dept

Time and time again we're told by incumbent ISPs that if lawmakers give them "X," we'll soon be awash in all manner of miraculous network investment and job creation. Sometimes "X" is an acquisition, as when AT&T promised to magically increase competition if it was allowed to remove T-Mobile from the marketplace. Often "X" is broad deregulation. Other times it's significant regulation of they other guy. Sometimes it's just subsidies. Lately we've been told that if we only don't apply net neutrality rules, we'll be awash in amazing network investment and next-generation broadband in no time.

Of course, if you stop and actually pay attention, time and time again you'll shockingly find that these repeated telecom Utopias never arrive, and by giving your favorite lumbering telecom duopolist everything it wants, things generally only get worse. Deregulate AT&T broadly in California under promise that you'll see lower rates and greater competition, for example, and watch miraculously how things actually get worse (and nobody wants to talk about it). AT&T's currently telling state lawmakers that if they gut all regulations requiring it maintain DSL and POTS networks (so AT&T can hang up on users it doesn't want to upgrade) we'll soon be awash in the technology miracles of tomorrow. Downgrades are upgrades, you see.

"X" is also all-too-frequently tax breaks and incentives. You might recall that Verizon promised the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania it would deliver fiber broadband to every home in exchange for billions in tax cuts. After getting the incentives Verizon simply threw money at the States, and a decade later both States were willing to forget Verizon's obligations entirely.

Similarly, the Wall Street Journal recently dug through the history books, and found that bonus depreciation -- imposed as part of the 2008 Stimulus Act and pushed for by the telcos to spur job creation and investment -- also never delivered the goods. Essentially an interest-free loan that lets companies defer tax obligations, the Journal notes that, once again, the promised job growth and investment spikes never actually happened:

"But that isn’t how it has worked, at least at AT&T and Verizon, whose vast networks of towers and cables make them two of the country’s biggest investors in infrastructure. AT&T estimated its federal tax bill last year at $3 billion, down from about $5.9 billion in 2007, before the tax relief was enacted. Verizon estimated that it would get $197 million back last year, compared with a 2007 bill of $2.6 billion. Meanwhile, the companies have kept their capital spending relatively flat since the stimulus was adopted, and their employee count has dropped by more than 100,000 people, a fifth of their combined work forces."

This was, the Journal notes, despite studies years earlier clearly illustrating that bonus depreciation didn't really work, though AT&T (as it does with everything) is threatening reduced investment if the policies aren't extended. While wireless spending remains strong, the Journal fails to note that AT&T's fixed-line investment has actually been dropping significantly -- even while the company pretends to be expanding gigabit fiber to get its DirecTV acquisition approved by regulators. It's a never-ending cycle of bluffing and bullshit, and at some point you'd think we'd stop and realize that maybe just giving lumbering, pampered duopolists absolutely everything they want may not be the quickest path to telecom nirvana.

from the a-long,-long-time dept

With the Justice Department believing that it can get all sorts of data from telcos without any oversight or without a warrant, it seems rather important to know what kind of info your mobile operator is keeping -- and for how long. The ACLU, via a Freedom of Information Act request, was able to get a "for law enforcement use only" document that shows how long the carriers hold on to what data (Wired also notes that the document could already be found online if you knew the title). The document itself is a pretty weak scan:

Thankfully, however, now that the data is out there, we can show it friendlier formats. Michael Robertson was kind enough to take the data (minus the "for law enforcement use only" part, and put it into a Google docs spreadsheet:

Additionally, the folks at Wired put together a nice infographic from the data:

What it seems to show is that Verizon holds onto your texting data for the least amount of time, but also retains the actual text of your text messages -- something no one else, outside of Virgin Mobile, does. How long until we see a push for a mobile data retention law to "standardize" what these companies have to hang onto and for how long?

from the regulatory-failure dept

The biggest problem in the telco world is the lack of competition. Most of the worst abuses by various telecom providers is because there really isn't enough competition to make it worthwhile to treat customers better. The best thing that governments can do to encourage better broadband/telco services is to encourage competition. Apparently, Canada has different priorities. A new mobile firm was set to open up shop in Canada, called Globalive. However, Canada apparently has some rules about how telcos need to have Canadian ownership. And while Globalive was originally judged to meet the criteria in bidding on spectrum, a different government bureaucracy has now said that it doesn't meet the Canadian ownership requirements. In other words, to the Canadian government, having local ownership is more important than real competition. This is basically a form of protectionism that (like most forms of protectionism) ends up harming consumers.

from the hypocrisy-in-action dept

For the past couple of years, telcos and cable companies have been pushing for metered broadband, usually with the bogus claim that "it's not fair" for a light user to be subsidizing a heavy user. This is a neat little disingenuous trick that implies "light users" would see their bills decrease under metered billing plans. However, the same telcos pushing for metered broadband on connections are the same telcos who have wireless operators as well... and for mobile users, they're doing away with the metered billing option at the lower end, forcing everyone into a much higher priced all-you-can-eat model. Oops. Metered billing has nothing to do with fairness. It's an attempt by telcos to squeeze more money out of customers in a market where they often have little in the way of competitive options. Because, as we've seen, when there's real competition, it's a lot more difficult for providers to offer such plans.

from the brother-can-you-spare-$2-billion dept

Sprint has sent a letter to the incoming Obama administration making a pitch for a $2 billion emergency communications network (via Phone Scoop) for first responders. Sprint's plan calls for satellite-equipped trucks (that sound like mobile base stations on wheels) and up to 100,000 handsets and other gear to be stockpiled around the country so that it could be delivered anywhere in the US within four hours. Sprint wants the plan included in the economic stimulus plan working its way through Congress -- and it's just coincidence, of course, that Sprint would be a huge beneficiary of such legislation, and $2 billion would give its struggling business a big boost. Without a doubt, public-safety communications are in need of a serious overhaul, and this is an area that the FCC and other parties have been looking at for some time. It's a complex situation -- one that deserves a more thorough investigation and solution, rather than a piece of government pork.

from the welcome-to-the-soviet-ministries dept

While the FCC and certain broadband companies like to insist that there's real competition in the broadband market, right here in the heart of Silicon Valley, there's little evidence that this is true. If there were real competition, they might take customer service seriously. In the past few days I've had two separate issues with AT&T that suggests that the company treats customer service as not just an after thought, but something to effectively be shunned. Given my long history in killing off broadband providers who give me service, perhaps it's only fair that they do their best not to serve me, but these two experiences seemed worth shining some light on.

First, a quick history. That link above goes through all the broadband providers I went through (and killed off) in the 2001 time frame. After that, I ended up with Comcast cable modem service until 2004. In October of 2004, Comcast turned the cable modem service to my house off every day at 10am for no clear reason. Every day I would call, and the response would be: "Oh, this is scheduled maintenance. Service will be back by 4pm." I would ask if I should expect the service to go down the next day as well, and be told that they had no idea. Apparently, the "schedule" for scheduled maintenance was a tightly held secret -- but it went on, every single day, for at least the month of October. I moved in November of that year, and swore off Comcast after that experience. My only other option was AT&T. I ordered AT&T DSL and was promised it would be installed within a week. A week came and went, and I called AT&T. They told me the order had been canceled because (despite what the first person told me) DSL wasn't actually available at my location (right in the middle of Silicon Valley). Why they didn't call to let me know of the cancellation was not explained.

I asked why the first person had told me service was available, and the woman told me to hold one while she checked her other computer. That computer told her that DSL was available at my location, despite what the first computer said. Apparently, AT&T does not have a single map of DSL availability, preferring to load a series of different local availability maps on every computer.

A year ago I moved again, and DSL has been working more or less okay at the new location. However, last Thursday it died in the afternoon and was down until around midnight. When it came back it was super slow -- maxing out around 64 kbps. I waited until Friday afternoon and decided I should call to ask what's up. That's when I discovered that AT&T makes it damn near impossible to find a phone number. The AT&T website has no phone numbers listed at all. When I clicked on the "contact" link, I was given a one-line form to discuss what my problem was. When I hit submit, I received a blank page. No matter how many times I tried, I always got the blank page. Eventually, and I don't remember how, I got to an error page that listed a bunch of phone numbers. I called the one listed with "Residential: 1-877-737-2478" since this is a residential account.

Thus began a rather insane process. After waiting on hold, the call proceeded as follows:

Automated system demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.

AT&T Rep asks me for my account number (despite having punched it in already). She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). She tells me she needs to put me on hold.

Rather than putting me on hold, she actually transfers me. I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.

The woman asks me (again!) for my account number. Then she asks why I've called her. She works in sales. Tells me she needs to transfer me, but tells me in the future to call 888.321.2375 for tech support. She transfers me.

I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.

The next woman asks me (again!) for my account number. She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). I say California, and she says she doesn't serve California, only a region of 9 southern states (hasn't it been more than a year since AT&T & BellSouth merged?). She transfers me -- after personally promising me the next person I speak to will be the correct person. She also tells me that, contrary to the earlier person (and the AT&T website) the real number to call is: 800.310.2355.

I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.

By the way, at this point, I've had the "hold voice" repeatedly pitch me on upgrading my service, mentioning that if I do, I can get access to "AT&T's award-winning customer service." I am getting curious as to exactly what "award" this is.

Before the next woman can say much beyond hello, I explain the saga, and mention that she is the 4th person I'm speaking to and ask her please, if she is the right person to help me fix my slow DSL in California. She says she will try, and (again!) asks for my account number. She does some searches and then admits: she really wants to help, but she's in billing, not tech support. She promises to transfer me (and kindly gives me a small credit on my account). She also tells me that the proper phone number to call in the future is none of the above, but 877.722.3755.

Unlike the last few people, she actually says on the line and answers the same exact questions in the automated system for me. This is something of a consolation, though I've gotten good at entering the info.

Finally, tech support! I give the guy my account info (again!) and he logs into my modem and he diagnoses: your connection is slow. I could have told him that. Wait, actually, I did tell him that. He doesn't know what to do, but says that tech support will call me back later. I thought he was tech support, but whatever.

An hour later, I get an automated call from AT&T tech support, telling me to call them back at (yes, a different number): 888.312.2450.

I call back, and amazingly am put in contact with a competent tech, who doesn't treat me like an idiot, who even gets me logged into the DSL modem myself, explains the different system readings, and notes that my modem seems to have capped itself at 64kbps. He says it could be a few different things, but the most likely is a broken phone cable from the jack to the modem. I switch the cables, and voila, it's working again.

Total elapsed time since the first phone call, about 3 hours, but only about 1.5 hours total on the phone. It was definitely a bit of a hassle, but eventually I found someone smart and competent, and I figured that maybe I just had a bad experience with AT&T. Little did I know. By Monday evening, my Friday experience would seem fast and simple.

I have some travel coming up, and was realizing that I may not be in EVDO coverage for some of it. So I thought it might be good to make use of the AT&T WiFi that's included as a part of my account. It's supposed to work at McDonalds, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble and some other places as well. While I had signed up and used the WiFi service a few years ago, it's probably been at least two years since I last tried. On Monday, I figured I'd hit up a McDonalds at lunch and test it out, to work out any "kinks" if there were any. I honestly figured it would be fine.

I got my chicken sandwich (sans mayo) and sat down to login. Yippee. I even was sitting next to an outlet, but quickly discovered that the outlet had been turned off (boo). Okay, so I get the (extremely slow) proxy server that asks me to login. I type in my login info, and it gives me a message: "We're Sorry - Your Login Has Been Rejected." Then it tells me to call: 888.888.7520 "for further assistance." So here's how that call went:

Dial the number from my mobile phone. It rings for a while and then says "I see you're calling from..." and repeats back a phone number I don't recognize, starting with a 512 area code (which is Austin, Texas). I'm in California on a California mobile phone, so I have no idea where that comes from. I say no.

It asks for my account number. I'm not at home, so I don't have my bill to read off the account number. I don't have internet access so I can't log in to get my account number. The system tells me my only options are to say my account number or to say I'm trying to sign up for service. I say "neither" a few times, and the system gets impatient with me, and then demands I answer from a specific list of problems what my issue is. All of the issues have to do with home DSL, not WiFi hotspots -- which seems odd, given that this is supposedly the WiFi hotspot support number.

Finally, it transfers me to a human who again asks my account info. I give it to her. She cannot find my account. She puts me on "hold" which again is actually a transfer. I again go through the dance with the automated call system -- which demands I choose between giving my account number or signing up for service, followed by a list of service options that have nothing to do with WiFi hotspots.

After a while on hold, I get another person, who also insists my account does not exist. She transfers me to tech support (or so she says).

I go through the same pointless questions, and speak to another person. I explain the situation, noting that she's the 3rd person I spoke to. She explains that she's not in tech support, but in customer retention.

I have now come to the conclusion that AT&T's "call transfer" system is actually a big roulette wheel that will dump you on any random person with a phone. I doubt most of them even work for AT&T.

I am transferred again. The fourth person I speak to, after going back and forth, tells me that she does not handle California customers (this sounds familiar).

I am transferred again. More messing with the annoying automated system, and I eventually get a guy who tells me that he cannot help me unless I can tell him my account number. He insists that when he looks up my user name, he gets a different account owner and a different address than the one I tell him. That's comforting.

Rather than transferring me, he says he can only give me the phone number to call for billing, where I should see if they can actually tell me my account info over the phone. Phone number: 800.288.2020. I ask him what number I should call after that to get back to him once I have the account number. He says to just ask to be transferred to DSL tech support.

I call the billing number, and speak to my 6th person of the day. After a great deal of effort, she finally reveals to me what my account number is (thank you!). She then, as requested, transfers me to DSL tech support.

My seventh customer support person of the day, after I've been on hold and have entered the proper account number, asks me for my account number anyway -- and then explains to me that DSL tech support has nothing to do with WiFi hotspots, but he will transfer me.

My eighth customer support person tells me that the WiFi access on my account was canceled twice. Once last September and once in January. Why twice when I don't think I ever canceled it even once? He has no clue.

Well, can I sign up to have the service included on my account? No. That's not his department. He needs to transfer me to customer support instead of tech support.

Transferred again. On hold again. Enter my info again. Now speaking to my 9th AT&T rep. After explaining the situation, I am told that it is impossible for them to add WiFi hotspots to my account over the phone. Instead, I need to (get this) sign up via the web at home.

I hang up, and notice another open WiFi network -- so I login, and go to the website he pointed me to: FreedomLink.com to sign up. Once there, I am directed to a page where I am told: "AT&T Wi-Fi Basic service is FREE and already included if you subscribe to AT&T High Speed Internet.... No ordering required! Simply use your AT&T high-speed Internet membership ID and password at any AT&T Wi-Fi Basic hot spot."

That seems to conflict with what the last few folks told me, so I pick up the phone again and call. After the same old process of entering info and being put on hold, I explain my situation to the 10th representative I am speaking to. She says she will get everything solved and puts me on hold. Every five or 10 minutes she comes back and says she's "getting the info I need" and will be back soon.

I begin to notice the batteries on both my laptop and my cell phone are on their last legs.

After nearly half an hour on hold, the woman comes back and tells me that she has found the phone number I really need to call. It's 877.722.3755 (the second time I've heard this number!) but that when I reach it, I need to ask for "Tier 2 support." She promises that she will take care of this part for me and will get me to the right person.

I mention to her that my batteries are almost dead anyway, and she says "Isn't that always how it is?" to which I respond: "No. Normally, it does not take 2.5 hours and 10 people to get me the info to log into my account."

Eventually, she gets me on the line with another woman, and tells her I need Tier 2 support and then hangs up. This new representative (the 11th I'm speaking to) asks me to repeat the whole situation to see if I really need Tier 2 support. I tell her my batteries are dying, and I really need Tier 2 support, and I need it as fast as possible.

She puts me on hold for 25 minutes -- where the hold message is pure silence, punctuated ever 10 seconds by the most annoying voice in the world commanding: "PLEASE WAIT."

She finally comes back, says: "I have connected you to tier 2 support" and hangs up. Except she hasn't connected me to Tier 2 support. She has transferred the call, so I'm in another hold queue.

Ten more minutes go by and someone finally picks up. As he finishes saying hello, the battery in my mobile phone dies and the call is over.

This is now 4:10pm. I had arrived at the restaurant at 1pm.

I drive home. I pick up my home phone and call one more time. After waiting on hold and inputting my information, I speak to my 13th customer rep of the day. He insists that the information is wrong on my account, and that I have the wrong username, though it's the same username that I had used to log into my AT&T account as I was speaking to him (now that I'm on my home WiFi, which since Friday, has been working fine).

He says that my username is actually different, but he refuses to tell me what my actual username is. Apparently, that's not allowed. Instead, he has me dig out my last AT&T bill, and buried on page 4 there is a username which is different from my regular username. He insists that this username will allow me to log into the WiFi hotspots

I'm no longer at McDonalds so I cannot test it, but perhaps I can now log into WiFi. I will have to go back to McDonalds later this week to try.

This is AT&T customer and tech support at work. I am left wondering if anyone who works at AT&T has ever called its "award winning" customer service line to get actual support. If there were actual competition in the broadband market here in the heart of Silicon Valley, I would switch providers. But my choice now is to go back to Comcast, who might kill service every day for a month for unscheduled scheduled maintenance or deal with AT&T's roulette wheel of customer and tech support.

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a huge boondoggle for telcos, who keep getting more and more money out of it, with almost no oversight into what's done with that money. And, the way it's set up, it actually blocks more innovative (and cheaper!) services from being used to improve connectivity in rural areas. It's good to see others are beginning to notice this. News.com is running an article from Gregory L. Rosston at Stanford who points out that the USF rewards companies for being the least efficient providers. That is, by showing how much more it costs the telcos to provide for rural users, the FCC grants them even more money. In other words, the less efficient they are, the more money they get. Not exactly the type of incentives the FCC should be setting up -- but given FCC chair Kevin Martin's super chummy relationship with the telcos, perhaps it's no surprise.

from the who'd-a-thunk-that-making-something-people-like-works dept

Rob Hyndman points us to a news report on what must have been one of the more bizarre panel discussions at this week's Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona. It was a panel on the user experience of mobile phones, where a bunch of folks from other companies tried to puzzle out why people liked the iPhone so much, noting that people generally associated the iPhone more with Apple than AT&T (gee... wonder why?) What's amazing is seeing some of the execs trying to come up with solutions through more careful methodologies:

"One direction, advocated by Lucia Predolin... is to manipulate users by identifying their "need states" -- including such compulsions as 'killing time,' and 'making the most of it' -- and fulfilling them subliminally."

And that, of course, is exactly why no other company designed the iPhone before Apple. They're trying to overthink things and figure out how to manipulate users, rather than sitting back and saying "how can we build something cool that people like that doesn't suck the way existing phones do?"

from the maturing-markets dept

It's always interesting to see stories worrying about high growth markets maturing. When a market is growing rapidly, there are always those who believe they'll grow forever. But markets mature and run out of growth potential. The telco industry is now coming to terms with that, as 80% of Americans have mobile phones, and 79% of homes with computers have broadband access. At that point, it's no surprise that telcos might not have the same growth opportunities as before, and might start scrambling to try to find new avenues for growth. That's why you see both Verizon and AT&T pushing into the television market, while poking around in some other areas as well. It's also why Sprint needs to kiss and make up with Clearwire, and get a nationwide WiMax system up and running. Also, start expecting to see attempts to create more innovative uses of the telecom systems already in place, such as non-phone equipment making use of mobile networks (the Kindle was just the beginning). Either way, the scramble is now on for telcos who are used to growing at a certain pace to start aggressively seeking new avenues for growth. While that's happening, don't be surprised to see more aggressive attempts to poach customers from each other as well. That's going to be good for customers, as it's likely to force the various telcos to become more open as a way of attracting more customers by doing more than just dropping prices. No matter what happens, the telco industry recognizes that it needs to change and change quickly if it wants to keep up some form of growth.

from the fee-fee-fee-fee dept

Mobile operators have a long history of trying to hide price increases by adding official looking, but totally unnecessary fees to customer bills. The fees usually have quasi-governmental names to them, such as "Federal Programs Cost Recovery," which makes many customers (falsely) believe that these are actually taxes required by the government. Instead, they're simply a way for the operators to squeeze more money out of you while claiming to keep the price low. There's been something of a crackdown on these fees lately, and Sprint has decided to throw in the towel... sorta. It's getting rid of three of the fees, but replacing them with two other fees, just to make things even more confusing. Again, it doesn't appear that either fee is required, but rather they act as a way to hide a price increase while being able to publicly market a lower price.